Resources (curated library)

Primary sources (official EU process)

• JURI draft report: PE790.143v02-00, rapporteur René Repasi (29 June 2026)

  Parliament's first text-level position on the proposal: 151 pages and 246 amendments, including the deletion of Article 4 in favour of a labour-law firewall and designated national gap-filler forms, a numeric startup definition with excluded sectors (Annex Ia), a ban on trading the shares on public venues, the steward-owned EU Inc. SO and the EU-ESOP. Now listed on the OEIL procedure file (linked above); the version carried in Parliament's JURI document register is PE790.143v02-00. Our full read: inside the European Parliament's draft report.

• JURI debate on the draft report, European Parliament webstream (15 July 2026)

  The rapporteur and shadow rapporteurs set out their opening positions on scope, legal basis, public listing, co-determination and insolvency. This is the public debate (webstream), not a formal committee readout; none was published.

• ECON opinion on the 28th regime, in the form of a letter (15 July 2026): PE788.878

  The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) delivered its opinion to JURI as a letter (ECON-AL-788878, ECON Chair Aurore Lalucq), adopted 34 to 13 with 9 abstentions. It backs the proposal as a first step and asks JURI to let EU Inc companies access public markets (against the draft report's listing ban) and to add an optional tax module (opt-in or enhanced cooperation), including mandatory employee stock options taxed on disposal as capital income.

• JURI tabled amendments (22 July 2026): PE791.127 to PE791.131

  The amendments to René Repasi's draft report tabled by JURI members and shadow rapporteurs, after the 17 July 2026 deadline. Five documents, PE791.127, PE791.128, PE791.129, PE791.130 and PE791.131, all dated 22 July 2026 in the procedure file. JURI takes them up on 7 September 2026. Our read of the employee-equity chapter, Articles 78 to 79a: employee stock options and the EU-ESO.

• Commission EU Inc. Proposal Package (18 March 2026)

  The full legislative proposal for an EU-wide corporate framework for innovative companies. Includes the draft regulation, communication, annex, factsheet, and impact assessment.

• Draft Regulation Text: COM(2026) 321

  The legal text of the proposed EU Inc. regulation as submitted to Parliament and Council.

• Current legislative procedure file - 2026/0074(COD)

  Parliament's OEIL procedure file for the live ordinary legislative procedure, including committee responsibility, rapporteur assignments, and referral status.

• Commission Press Release: EU Inc: Making Business Easier (18 March 2026)

  Official announcement and summary of the proposal package.

• European Council Conclusions (19–20 March 2026)

  EU leaders endorsed the “One Europe, One Market” agenda and called for adoption of the 28th regime by end of 2026.

• Council of the EU - Competitiveness Council main results (28 May 2026)

  Official Council readout from the first minister-level policy debate on EU Inc. Ministers backed continued work toward the end-2026 target, while safeguards and legal certainty remained central negotiation points.

• Council provisional agenda - COMPET 28 May 2026 (CM 2753/26)

  Formal agenda confirming EU Inc. as item 2 for public deliberation at the 28 May Competitiveness Council.

• Council Presidency background brief - EU Inc. policy debate (ST 8598/26)

  The note framing the ministerial exchange, including open questions on legal basis, insolvency and taxation, forum shopping, co-determination, and safeguards.

• Member states' drafting suggestions (WK 9143/2026 INIT, 26 June 2026)

  A 618-page Council General Secretariat compilation of article-by-article written drafting suggestions from 21 of the 27 member states, each comment attributed to the delegation that made it. The first primary, document-numbered source showing who wants what on this file, rather than what ministers said afterwards. Two caveats travel with it. The six states that did not contribute (Germany, Italy, Ireland, Belgium, Cyprus and Romania) hold 39.9% of EU population, above the 35% blocking threshold, while the 21 that did hold 60.1%, below the 65% a qualified majority needs. And this is delegations' written input, not an agreed Council position; it predates the Irish Presidency compromise text of 17 July.

  Two patterns worth reading for: eight states question Article 114 TFEU as the legal basis, split between a challenge to the whole instrument (Austria, Bulgaria, Slovakia) and one aimed only at the tax provisions (Czechia, Estonia, Croatia, Luxembourg, Sweden, plus Austria on Article 86); and eight states raise registered-office forum shopping on employee participation under Article 12, with Sweden proposing a place-of-employment connecting factor three weeks before the rapporteur took the same position at JURI.

• Coreper guidance note metadata (ST 11522/26)

  Council metadata confirming that Coreper I discussed "Guidance for further work" on EU Inc. on 15 July 2026. The note's substance and a public outcome are not available.

• Council Working Party revised agenda, 23 July 2026 (CM 3679/1/26 REV 1)

  The first Council agenda to name a Presidency compromise text on this file, ST 11829/26. The full compromise text is not public.

• Council second-half provisional agendas (ST 10983/26)

  Provisionally lists a further 28th-regime policy debate at the Competitiveness Council on 24 September 2026. This is a planning milestone, not a fixed agreement date.

• Formal EESC consultation - EU Inc. proposal (CM 2668/26)

  Council document triggering the formal European Economic and Social Committee consultation on COM(2026) 321, separate from the April EESC Workers' Group conference.

• EESC mandatory opinion - EU Inc. (INT/1123-EESC-00744-00-00-AC)

  Adopted on 15 July 2026. The opinion supports the cross-border objective while calling for sustainable-governance, anti-fraud, anti-money-laundering and worker-participation safeguards.

• European Parliament adopted text: 28th-regime recommendations (20 January 2026)

  Parliament's formal adopted recommendations in procedure 2025/2079(INL), which fed into the Commission's March proposal.

• European Parliament press release: “MEPs propose new legal framework for innovative companies” (16 January 2026)

  Parliament's pre-vote framing ahead of the 20 January adopted recommendations, useful as a short institutional summary of the political case for the regime.

• Council Working Party on Company Law: Session 2 Agenda (17 April 2026)

  Agenda document for the Council working-party session examining the Commission proposal article by article.

• European Commission: Work Programme 2026 (EUR-Lex)

  High-level roadmap that references setting up the 28th regime.

• European Parliament: Legislative Train: “28th regime for innovative companies”

  Parliament’s tracking page summarising where the initiative sits and what comes next.

• European Commission: “Have your say” initiative (28th regime consultation)

  The consultation hub and stakeholder feedback around the future regime.

• European Commission: EU Startup and Scaleup Strategy

  Strategy context that repeatedly references reducing fragmentation for startups and scaleups.

Core proposals and positions

• EU-INC - Policy proposal and position paper

  The community blueprint and current negotiation position for EU Inc., including register-once-operate-everywhere, non-discrimination, the central registry, and EU-wide stock-option asks.

  Homepage: EU-INC

• Bruegel: “Regime 0” (policy brief)

  A structured, targeted optional regime for innovative, scale-oriented startups.

  PDF: Download

Parliament research & neutral summaries

• EPRS briefing: “The 28th regime corporate legal framework” (15 April 2026)

  Parliament’s research-service briefing on the Commission proposal. Useful as a neutral institutional summary of the legal framework and political context.

• EPRS - Initial appraisal of the Commission’s impact assessment (9 June 2026)

  The Parliament’s research service quality-checks the evidence base behind the proposal. It finds a clear intervention logic and cites the Commission’s estimate of EUR 328 to 440 million in administrative-burden savings over ten years for around 308,000 companies, while noting the impact assessment does not quantify some expected benefits (such as additional investment flows) and lacks a subsidiarity grid. EPRS_BRI(2026)788143.

• European Parliament Topics - “EU Inc.: what is the 28th regime?” (6 May 2026)

  Public-facing Parliament explainer published after Commissioner McGrath's JURI appearance, useful for a quick institutional read of the proposal and timeline.

• European Parliament Research: “The 28th regime” brief (PDF)

  A compact overview of the concept, trade-offs, and framing before the proposal text arrived.

• European Parliament study: “The Scope of the 28th Regime” (PDF)

  Deeper analysis of design choices, legal constraints, and the optional-regime model.

Positions from stakeholders (useful signals)

• European Trade Union Institute (ETUI) - “Innovation or evasion? How the 28th regime (EU Inc) undermines collective rights” (18 March 2026)

  Labour-side analysis published the same day as the Commission proposal. Argues the 28th regime risks shifting corporate risk onto workers and weakening codetermination if board representation follows the registered office rather than the place of work. The clearest articulation of the worker-rights critique now reaching the Council's governance chapter.

• Corporate Europe Observatory - “EU Inc: A corporate master plan to attack our rights” (9 June 2026)

  The most forceful civil-society critique to date, published the day before the Council's governance-chapter session. An eight-section primer arguing the proposal should be dropped entirely, covering the country-of-origin question under Article 4, co-determination and regime shopping, registration speed, and creditor risk. Useful as the clearest statement of what the proposal's opponents actually want.

• ETUC - “Unions call for a halt on 28th company regime until safeguards for workers' rights are included” (27 May 2026)

  The European Trade Union Confederation's escalation to “halt” language the day before the COMPET ministerial debate, signalling where the union side stood going into the Council's governance discussions.

• DigitalEurope: Position on the 28th regime (PDF)

  Industry positioning on what an optional EU-wide company framework should solve for startups and growth companies.

• European Law Institute: Response to the consultation (PDF)

  Legal-technical feedback on the consultation and design choices behind a 28th-regime framework.

• Social Europe - "EU Inc Is a Deregulation Tool in Disguise" (29 June 2026)

  Labour-side argument that the main beneficiaries of the 28th regime would be large multinationals rather than the startups it is aimed at, with a warning about a regulatory race to the bottom. The widest-reach statement of the deregulation critique now circulating alongside the ETUI and ETUC positions.

• German Federal Chamber of Notaries - “EU Inc.: A 28th Regime of Uncertainty”

  Institutional critique focused on preventive control, register reliability, and the legal-basis risk. Useful now that safeguards and legal certainty have moved to the centre of the Council debate.

• Allied for Startups: Joint letter “The 28th Regime must be a Regulation, not a Directive” (October 2025)

  Coalition letter to the von der Leyen Commission signed ahead of the proposal, arguing that a Regulation (directly applicable and uniform) is the only instrument that delivers a true single company form. Recirculating as the legal-basis and instrument-type debate moves into Council and Parliament.

  PDF: full letter PDF

Tax dimension (FISC)

• European Parliament (ECON) - “Feasibility of a 28th tax regime and its potential to support EU competitiveness” (adopted 3 June 2026)

  The first formal committee-level output on the tax dimension. Parliament’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs adopted Ľudovít Ódor’s own-initiative report by 36 votes to 18, asking the Commission to examine an optional EU tax regime alongside the company-law proposal (withholding taxes, the corporate income tax base, loss relief, R&D incentives, and employee share schemes), while respecting fiscal sovereignty. It is a political signal, not a law: an own-initiative report (procedure 2025/2211(INI)) that the full Parliament adopted on 9 July 2026 by 366 votes to 192, with 39 abstentions (adopted text A-10-2026-0167). Draft report ECON-PR-785418.

  Coverage: Agence Europe

• European Parliament study - “Feasibility of a 28th Tax Regime and Its Potential to Support EU Competitiveness” (PE 772.644, published 15 July 2026)

  The commissioned study underlying the tax track, by a KU Leuven team (Debelva, Luts, Vandekerkhove, Bammens). Presented at the FISC workshop on 16 April 2026, but the full text was only published on 15 July. It proposes treating tax elements as separate “building blocks” rather than one instrument, prefers enhanced cooperation or an opt-in directive over an intergovernmental agreement, and recommends a sunset clause. Building blocks covered: withholding tax relief through a one-stop shop, a coordinated (not common) corporate income tax base, temporary loss deferral, a harmonised R&D credit refundable for startups, an EU transfer-pricing rulebook with safe harbours, Tax Merger Directive access, coordinated employee-share-option taxation, and procedural VAT interoperability. This is expert advice to a committee, not a legislative proposal.

• FISC Public Hearing: Feasibility of a 28th Tax Regime (24 February 2026)

  Parliament’s tax subcommittee hearing with expert presentations from Bruegel, CEPS, and ETAF on whether a complementary tax regime is feasible.

  Hearing hub: agenda, programme, documents, and webstream

• FISC Subcommittee Meeting: Feasibility of a 28th Tax Regime (16 April 2026)

  Secondary coverage of the parallel tax workstream examining whether an EU-level tax framework could complement the 28th-regime company-law regulation.

• Bruegel “Regime 0 / Hub0” policy brief

  Reference brief frequently cited in the tax-policy discussion around optional regimes for innovative firms.

• CEPS and ETAF submissions

  Supporting submissions linked from the FISC hearing materials.

Academic & policy analysis

• European Council on Foreign Relations - "EU Incorporated: The way to start-up European competitiveness" (10 July 2026)

  The first foreign-policy think-tank voice on the file. Argues for keeping the 28th regime a directly-applicable Regulation rather than a Directive, on competitiveness and strategic-autonomy grounds: a single European corporate form keeps promising firms from relocating abroad while member states retain their national company law. A geopolitical framing that sits alongside the legal-basis and single-market arguments.

• Oxford Business Law Blog - “EU Inc - European Universities In New Conversations” (11 June 2026)

  Keyvan Rastegar, a lawyer involved in Austria's FlexCo reform, makes the strongest practitioner case for the proposal so far: the Article 4 reference to national law is “healthy Realpolitik” that mirrors how Delaware actually works, and Austria's experience (about 1,800 FlexCos formed since 2024) shows what a modern optional form unlocks in practice. The direct counterweight to the constitutional-paradox critique.

• Oxford Business Law Blog - “Delaware SB 21: Lessons for the EU Inc” (10 June 2026)

  Alessio Pacces argues the 28th regime's open-textured rules need a credible enforcer. Delaware works because its courts police the statute consistently; with no equivalent EU-level court, twenty-seven national courts will read the same rules through twenty-seven legal cultures. His fix is a dedicated EU-level tribunal.

  Full paper: SSRN

• Oxford Business Law Blog - “The insolvency framework of the EU Inc: 27 x 27 = 729” (9 June 2026)

  Francisco Garcimartín shows that because insolvency follows the existing European Insolvency Regulation rather than the new rulebook, a 28th regime company could face up to 729 combinations of national company law and national insolvency law. Calls for a single point of entry tied to the registered office.

• Oxford Business Law Blog - “EU Inc: Between Constitutional Constraints and Political Choice” (5 June 2026)

  Wolf-Georg Ringe argues the legal-basis debate puts the cart before the horse: political will, not treaty precision, drives European integration, and Article 114 TFEU is “probably good enough”. The counterweight to the constitutional-paradox critiques.

  Original essay: Verfassungsblog, “EU Inc. and the Myth of the Perfect Legal Basis” (3 June 2026)

• Oxford Business Law Blog - “Corporate Law Competition in the EU Revisited: Italian Corporations Moving North and the Missing German SPACs” (30 June 2026)

  Empirical analysis of post-reform corporate mobility: Italian firms reincorporating in lower-cost EU jurisdictions and the absence of SPAC activity in Germany. Provides the regulatory-competition baseline against which EU Inc.’s impact on jurisdictional choice will be measured.

• Oxford Business Law Blog - “EU Inc and the Missing Link Between Company and Intellectual Property Law” (12 June 2026)

  Argues that the proposal fails to address the relationship between the EU Inc. form and IP ownership, assignment, and licensing, creating a structural gap for the innovation-economy companies the regime is meant to serve.

• Enriques, Nigro, Tröger: “The EU Inc.: A Half-Naked 28th Regime” (ECGI WP 942/2026, 6 June 2026)

  The most substantive academic working paper on the proposal to date. The authors argue that EU Inc. without a complementary tax and insolvency framework is a “half-naked” regime, and set out what a full-spectrum architecture would require. Essential reading for understanding the legislative gaps and the treaty constraints in play.

  ECGI: ecgi.global working paper

• Oxford Business Law Blog - “Can EU Inc Make European Corporate Law ‘Good Enough’?” (3 June 2026)

  Luca Enriques and John Friess set the evaluative bar: the 28th regime does not need to be perfect, only good enough to stop founders defaulting to Delaware, with the value in convergence rather than any single rule. Practitioner-academic co-authorship signalling a market perspective.

  Cross-post: Columbia Law School Blue Sky Blog (8 June 2026)

• Oxford Business Law Blog - “EU Inc: A Constitutional Paradox at the Heart of Article 4” (2 June 2026)

  The European Company Law Experts (ECLE) group argues that Article 4's national-law gap-fill risks turning one European form into twenty-seven national variants, the central “will it actually converge?” critique of the proposal as drafted.

• 7th LawFin Workshop - ECGI Blog special edition (1–3 June 2026)

  The ECGI-Bocconi-LawFin Workshop of 7 May 2026 (“The 28th Regime: An Effective Legal Architecture for Innovation in Europe?”) produced a special edition of short essays on the proposal, covering branding, scope, corporate templates, and insolvency.

  Workshop hub: ECGI event page  ·  Posts: Rebecca Christie, “28th regime: tool or branding?” (1 Jun)  ·  Vasco Pereira da Silva, “A European Company Form for Startups and Scaleups?” (1 Jun)  ·  Wolf-Georg Ringe, “Harmonisation or Optionality?” (1 Jun)  ·  Irit Mevorach, “The Insolvency Chapter: A Comment” (1 Jun)  ·  Luca Enriques, “Corporate Templates in the EU Inc. Proposal” (3 Jun)

• Bruegel - “How to secure the benefits of an EU-wide incorporation regime” (25 March 2026)

  Fiona Scott Morton and Reinhilde Veugelers (Analysis 14/2026) on the targeting problem: an open-to-all scope may not attract the innovative scalers the 28th regime is meant to serve.

• Oxford Business Law Blog - “The EU's 28th Regime and the Future of Insolvency Law: Why One Size May Fail All” (28 May 2026)

  Wolf-Georg Ringe's post-workshop insolvency analysis argues that optionality may fit Europe's diverse insolvency systems better than one-size-fits-all harmonisation.

• Oxford Business Law Blog - “The EU Inc - Half European, Fully Digital, and Genuinely Innovative” (27 May 2026)

  Jessica Schmidt and Christoph Teichmann on the Article 4 national-law gap-fill, specialised chambers, digital share transfers, and codetermination tied to the employees' actual place of work.

  Working paper: ECGI Law Working Paper No. 922/2026

• European Law Blog - “Article 114 TFEU: The wrong choice for the 28th regime” (19 May 2026)

  Thomas Jaeger and Adnan Tokić argue that Article 114 TFEU is the wrong standalone legal basis for an autonomous EU Inc. form, directly mapping to the legal-basis question now visible in Council.

• Oxford Business Law Blog - “Completing the EU Inc Regime: A VC-Gated Startup Sandbox” (28 April 2026)

  Jesús Alfaro Águila-Real proposes a time-limited Startup Sandbox Module inside EU Inc., gated by recognised venture-capital participation.

• Kluwer International Tax Blog: “The EU 28th Regime for Innovative Companies Needs a Dual-Instrument Architecture”

  Dennis Weber argues that a complete 28th regime needs both a company-law regulation and a tax directive, and maps out what the tax side could include.

• Oxford Business Law Blog - “Build It and They Will Come? Why EU Inc Needs a Pilot”

  Silvie Rohr's pilot-mechanism argument for testing EU Inc. in live cross-border use before the regime is expanded or locked in.

• ECIPE - “Europe's ‘EU Inc.’ Is a Step Forward”

  Matthias Bauer's constructive companion to his more sceptical 28th-regime analysis: EU Inc. as a first pillar, but not a complete answer to tax, labour, insolvency, and contract-law fragmentation.

• Corporate Finance Lab - “The EU Inc. Proposal: how far does it really go?”

  Academic-practice commentary on the proposal's actual reach and the limits of what a company-law-only regime can solve.

• Swisscore - “28th Regime? Let's call it EU Inc. as of now”

  Swiss Brussels-policy perspective on the Commission's EU Inc. framing and startup-policy relevance beyond EU Member States.

Professional analysis (law firms & industry)

A short curated selection, not an exhaustive list.

• Andersen - “EU Inc. (28th Regime): Proposal, Timeline, Key Features and Structural Limits”

  A clear law-firm overview balancing what the form changes (zero minimum capital, the EU-ESO, non-par-value shares, SAFE compatibility) against its structural limits, including the forum-shopping risk and the reliance on national law. A useful practitioner read that takes both the innovations and the open questions seriously.

• Taylor Wessing: “EU Inc.: The 28th Regime”

  Practical legal commentary on how the proposal would change company formation and cross-border scaling.

• Stibbe: “EU proposal for a regulation on the 28th regime corporate legal framework”

  Law-firm analysis focused on the legal mechanics and likely negotiation issues in the proposal text.

• Liedekerke - “EU Inc. - The 28th Regime”

  Belgian practitioner analysis with useful detail on designated national forms, bilingual articles of association, transfer rules, and the proposed EU employee stock option regime.

• Eubelius - “The EU Inc.: the European Commission's proposal for a 28th corporate regime”

  Benelux-focused overview of COM(2026) 321, including the Belgian BV/SRL fit and the open question of preventive control.

• Irish Legal News - “EU-Inc and the 28th regime - a new legal framework for Europe?”

  Irish legal-market analysis. Useful context as Ireland takes over the Council Presidency in H2 2026 and inherits the file after Cyprus.

• Schoenherr: “EU Inc.: The 28th Regime Corporate Legal Framework”

  Practical analysis of the Commission's EU Inc. proposal, with the clearest practitioner-level explanation so far of Article 4 national-law fallback: the official file is COM(2026) 321, while Schoenherr's URL says COM(2026) 322. Maps how the same EU Inc. label can rest on different national substrates such as GmbH, FlexCo, or Kft.

• VanLoman: “EU Inc.: tax implications”

  Tax-focused commentary that fills the current resources gap on conversion, structuring, and cross-border tax consequences.

• Freshfields: “EU Inc.: the insolvency provisions of the Commission's draft 28th regime proposal”

  Deep-dive on the proposal's insolvency provisions and the creditor-protection issues likely to matter during negotiations.

• CFE Tax Advisers Europe: Tax Top 5 (13 April 2026)

  Industry-body roundup covering the emerging tax dimension around the 28th-regime debate.

Legislative process

• Council of the EU: Company Law Working Party

  Technical examination of the Commission proposal is under way. Working Party sessions have been held on 17 April, 27 April, 6-7 May, 18 May, 2 June, 11 June (the governance chapter, covering internal organisation and worker participation), 17 June, and 25 June, with no public standalone readout published so far. Ministers held the first political debate at COMPET on 28 May. Sessions 10 and 11 met on 2 and 8 July. Session 12 met on 23 July and examined the Irish Presidency compromise text ST 11829/26, the first Presidency alternative text on the file; the document is registered but access-restricted, and no readout from the session has been published. Five further sessions are scheduled: 1, 10, 17 and 29 September, and 8 October. The 1, 17 and 29 September sessions are listed for 10:00; the Council has not yet listed a time or room for 10 September or 8 October. No agendas have been published for any of the five.

  Key links: 2 June agenda CM 2921/26 - 11 June meeting page - 17 June meeting page - 25 June meeting page - 2 July meeting page - 8 July meeting page - 23 July revised agenda CM 3679/1/26 REV 1 - 1 September meeting page - 10 September meeting page - 17 September meeting page - 29 September meeting page - 8 October meeting page

  No public central hub exists for every working-party item. Monitor the Council press releases and the published document register when agendas or notes surface.

• PublicPolicy.net EU Briefing - JURI calendar (29 May 2026)

  Secondary Brussels-policy source for the Parliament timetable as known on 29 May: the source projected the Repasi draft report for 26 June; it was dated 29 June (PE790.143v02-00). The amendment window closed on 17 July and the JURI mandate vote is expected in September. On plenary timing, prefer the official file: OEIL now carries 5 October 2026 as an indicative first-reading sitting date, which supersedes this source's earlier reading.

  Use alongside the official OEIL procedure file.

• Advisory-body track - EESC and Committee of the Regions

  The EESC adopted its mandatory opinion (INT/1123-EESC-00744-00-00-AC) on 15 July 2026 after the formal consultation triggered by CM 2668/26. The Committee of the Regions adopted its opinion (CDR-1414-2026, Roberta Angelilli rapporteur) on 2 July 2026. Both enter the legislative record but do not decide the file.

  Key links: EESC consultation CM 2668/26 - EESC opinion INT/1123 - CoR opinion CDR-1414-2026

Explainers

• Short explainer video (YouTube)

  A good starting point to share with founders and investors who want the “why” in minutes.